This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

New Jersey taxpayers still owe $100M on the Meadowlands — Brooklynian

New Jersey taxpayers still owe $100M on the Meadowlands

boygabriel
boygabriel
edited November -1 in Brooklyn Politics
One day we'll stop giving away millions that largely only benefit the privately-owned teams for privately-held profit.

Most important passage:
With more than four decades of evidence to back them up, economists almost uniformly agree that publicly financed stadiums rarely pay for themselves. The notable successes like Camden Yards in Baltimore often involve dedicated taxes or large infusions of private money. Even then, using one tax to finance a stadium can often steer spending away from other, perhaps worthier, projects.
Atlantic Yards is but the latest example of this. It's not the first nor will it be the last.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?_r=1&hp

I say this as a big sports fan, but it is egregious that public money goes to fund stadiums.

Comments

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    It is amazing that the builders of stadiums and arenas have been able to convince the public that they are somehow bring value to the public that is not achievable through private investment.

    ...somehow the public believes that their tax dollars are equally well spent on stadiums as they are on things like roads, mass transit, education etc.

    My only explanation is that we must have a public that believes what they are told.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    It's true, the public bears as much responsibility as anyone. Everyone wants to convince themselves that the stadiums are a net gain for the public, so everyone does so.
  • blenderfish
    blenderfish
    I'm not much of a fan of the Atlantic Yards project, but wasn't the Meadowlands built and owned by the state of New Jersey? Isn't that why they own the debt? Atlantic Yards is a private project, and while it has some public help in the form of bonds, won't most of the debt be held by Ratner? Can anyone clarify?

    There have been lots of shenanigans regarding Atlantic Yards, but I'm not sure if this is one of them.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    The debate is over the term "some help".

    ....many believe that the Yards were sold for a bargain
    ....the bonds were excessive.
    ....the tax waivers excessive
    ...and the infrastructure to support the project is at the tax payers expense.

    So some view it as a public project, in which a private corporation stands to gain the most.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    blenderfish wrote: I'm not much of a fan of the Atlantic Yards project, but wasn't the Meadowlands built and owned by the state of New Jersey? Isn't that why they own the debt? Atlantic Yards is a private project, and while it has some public help in the form of bonds, won't most of the debt be held by Ratner? Can anyone clarify?

    There have been lots of shenanigans regarding Atlantic Yards, but I'm not sure if this is one of them.
    Valid questions, I didn't intend however to make this an AY post.

    More its about every other stadium project ever, as almost all involve massive debt for the public, while the private entity continues to collect revenue.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Various Olympics have encountered similar difficulties.

    ....in those instances, massive amounts of money are spent by countries in what seems like an act of "bravado".

    When I was last in Montreal, the tour guide described how they were paying off their Olympic stadium complex from the 1970s. He pointed out how under utilized it has been since.....
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    Very good point. Olympics are very similar, and sometimes for countries much poorer than us.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    tickets cover a TINY portion of the Olympics experience and infrastructure.

    ....unless they can cover those expenses over the short term (i.e. via advertising) or the long term (i.e additional events), the public ends up paying for events that are for the benefit of relatively few people.

    I argue that the stature gained as a result of hosting an Olympics is also outlived by the debt, and reaped mostly by the leaders (not the folks paying for the majoirty if the debt).
  • raulism
    raulism
    blenderfish wrote: I'm not much of a fan of the Atlantic Yards project, but wasn't the Meadowlands built and owned by the state of New Jersey? Isn't that why they own the debt? Atlantic Yards is a private project, and while it has some public help in the form of bonds, won't most of the debt be held by Ratner? Can anyone clarify?

    There have been lots of shenanigans regarding Atlantic Yards, but I'm not sure if this is one of them.
    Technically, Atlantic Yards is a state project overseen by the Empire State Development Corporation, one of the unaccountable public authorities that the NY Times article rails against. Ratner/Prokhorov will lease the land for $1, though all the naming rights, once worth $400,000,000.00 will go to Ratner/Prokhorov, not the owners of the land, namely you and me.

    Neil deMause has a solid critique of the NY Times.
    Field of Schemes wrote: Whether the debt on an old stadium is paid off before it's demolished doesn't matter one whit. While "Whattaya mean, we're still paying for that pile of rubble?!?" is a natural reaction, it doesn't make much economic sense. Stadium debt is, when you come down to it, a bookkeeping measure — the construction expense is sunk the moment you sign the contract to build the thing. The rest is just a matter of (in a manner of speaking) what kind of mortgage your municipality wants to take out.

    If the state of New Jersey had chosen to pay off Giants Stadium by selling 20-year bonds, in other words, it still would have represented the same expense to the public — but since the bonds would have been retired faster, suddenly it wouldn't make Belson's hall of shame. That's nonsensical. If cities shifted to paying for their stadiums with suitcases full of twenties, would that make them better deals?
    ...

    The real scandal here isn't how debt service is financed, but rather that cities and states are tearing down perfectly functional stadiums just so that teams can stop paying rent, costing taxpayers millions. Now there's a headline I'd like to see in the Times.
    For more, see
    http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2010/09/as_stadiums_van.html
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    Those are good critiques, but it's still an important article by the times. And I think people are mistaken that its thesis was that the money was financed improperly rather than that the money was spent in the first place.

    A big takeaway from this is that taxpayers never see revenue on the $500M giveaways that happen all over the country.
  • neo-social
    neo-social
    If I am not correct this Atlantic yards project was started by the MTA...the MTA sends out an RFP for qualified developers. The project has a large amount of work that ties the long island rail road with the MTA station. This is similar to 2nd Ave subway station and other big project. Adding the developer allows the city to lessen the load of the project. Why do you think they were granted eminent domain. NOT for some stadium. There is a bigger picture here.

    Do not take this a plug for the stadium. I do not think it (stadium) will make Brooklyn any better. Jobs, better housing, upgrades to public transportation will serve the city well.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories